Movement of objects or substances on a pressure gradient along at least one path from a first zone to a second zone encompasses technology such as pneumatic tube systems, vacuum cleaning systems, emission removal systems, ventilation systems, fluid distribution systems, or the like.
Often, the use of these systems or the substances transported by them is regulated by law. Specifically, with respect to emission removal from indoor facilities, the need to remove unwanted, unhealthy or potentially lethal emissions from facilities is regulated by various federal, state, and local laws. For example, the 1996 International Mechanical Code, Section 502.11, stipulates that “ . . . areas in which stationary motor vehicles are operated shall be provided with a source capture system that connects directly to the motor vehicle exhaust systems.” International Mechanical Code (1996), hereby incorporated by reference. The presence of exhaust emissions may be detrimental to the health and well-being of persons who work in facilities in which such emissions are present. Not only may these emissions be harmful to the long-term health or well-being of persons inside the facility, but these emissions are also unpleasant or repellent to the senses. If not captured, these emissions may also attach themselves to the bodies or clothing of persons inside the facility. Furthermore, over time, the emissions may also stain the interior surfaces of the facility, causing the building to become an unattractive, malodorous, or unpleasant work environment.
Because of the convenience, health, safety, or legal concerns which can be addressed by pressure differential distribution systems there is a large commercial market for these systems. As such, numerous products have been introduced into the marketplace over the years. These various products or methods offer differing degrees of effectiveness in fulfilling the entire spectrum of substance movement, statutory, safety, or consumer requirements. However, even though a variety of devices have been introduced into the marketplace, substantial problems with existing devices remain unresolved.
A significant problem with existing pressure differential distribution devices may be that they are large or take up a lot of space. Since space in any facility is finite, it follows that different mechanical, structural, or electrical items may compete for space. The larger the pressure differential distribution device the less space that can be reserved for other uses. The large size of current devices also presents a problem for installers. If installed prior to other mechanical or electrical fixtures, a large pressure differential distribution device may present an obstacle to the installation of subsequent mechanical or electrical fixtures; on the other hand, if the emission extraction system is to be installed after other fixtures are in place, a large system may not fit as easily as a smaller one. Additionally, large devices increase shipping costs inherent in transporting a heavier item. Examples of existing large pressure differential distribution devices are disclosed by Harvey Inc., Carbon Monoxide Exhaust Removal System, Harvey Overhead Exhaust System, p. 6; Tykron, Inc., Vehicle Exhaust Gas Control, p. 1; Euro-Roller, Cover Picture; Fumex, Hosereel For Exhaust Extraction, Part No. SR 10, p. 1; Banzai, Exhaust Hose Reels, Exhaust Hose Reels, Cover Picture; Nederman, Inc., Spring-Loaded Exhaust Hose Reels, p. 2; Carmon Products, Inc., Car-mon Tubing Storage Reel Drawing No. 85-R1, p. 1, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference. Similarly, other types of large pressure differential distribution devices such as boom arms may furnish the consumer with the ability to swing the pressure differential distribution device along an arc, providing some mobility, however, these devices generate an operating boundary within which other objects or equipment may not typically be used. Examples of this type of large device are disclosed by Carmon Products, Inc., Carmon Rotoboom, RotoBoom, Drawing No. 79D5; Tykron, Inc., Swing Arm with Hose and Balancer, p. 1, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference. See also the devices disclosed by U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,086,847; 5,402,551; 5,119,843; 5,362,273; and 6,012,978, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference, as examples of large devices.
Another significant problem with existing pressure differential distribution devices may be that the various components of the device, even when in the stored position, are visually or mechanically exposed. With respect to the mechanical exposure of the device, having the components open to various types of physical mistreatment (for example, being inadvertently hit or run into) or to other environmental abuses (for example, chemical spills or spatters, or abrasives from various procedures) may lead to premature wear of the components. With respect to the visual appearance, not only may the components of the device lack pleasing aesthetics for the consumer who may purchase the device (or not if the appearance is too awkward), but also to the public to which the device may connote an unattractive image. See for example, exposed components of devices disclosed by Harvey Inc., Carbon Monoxide Exhaust Removal System, Harvey Overhead Exhaust System, p. 6; Tykron, Inc., Vehicle Exhaust Gas Control for Removal of Exhaust Fumes, p. 1; Euro-Roller, Cover Picture; Fumex, Hose Reel For Exhaust Extraction, Hose Reel, Part No. SR 10, p. 1; Banzai, Exhaust Hose Reels, Cover Picture; Nederman, Inc., Spring-Loaded Exhaust Hose Reels, p. 2; Carmon Products, Inc., Carmon Tubing Storage Reel, Drawing No. 85-R1 p. 1, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference. See also, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,119,843; 5,402,551; 6,012,978; 4,086,847; and 5,679,072, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference, as examples of devices having exposed components.
Another significant problem with existing pressure differential distribution devices may be that they utilize an exhaust hose that features a corrugated configuration. This corrugation greatly diminishes the pressure differential generator's or exhaust fan's capacity to draw substances or emissions through the corrugated hose. The corrugation creates resistance to gas flow, thereby requiring more powerful pressure differential generator. Unfortunately, as the power of the pressure differential generator increases, it becomes more expensive to purchase and to operate. Moreover, a more powerful pressure differential generator may produce a greater amount of noise, yet another irritant to those who are in close proximity to the system. Examples of corrugated hose are disclosure by Harvey Inc., Carbon Monoxide Exhaust Removal System, Harvey Hose and Tubing, Part H-40-20-AF or H-50-12-AF, p. 9; Cesco-Advanced Air, Flexible Tubing, Drawing F558-305A 11/25, p. 1 (1980); and Sacatec, Inc., Garage Exhaust—Ventilation Systems, Drawing No. SA0286-1, p. 1, each of which hereby incorporated by reference. See also U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,911,944; and 5,791,980, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference, as examples of corrugated configurations.
Another significant problem with existing pressure differential distribution devices may be that certain hose retraction methods pose risk of injury to persons. One type of device uses a spring-activated mechanism, often called a “balancer”, for hoisting the hose or terminal adapter into a stored position. This method of retrieval may be disclosed, for example, by Tykron, Inc., Swing Arm with Hose and Balancer, p. 1, hereby incorporated by reference. If the hose is released prematurely by the operator, the hose or adapter may sling toward an unsuspecting fellow worker, or may cause damage to any object in its trajectory, due to the fact that the hoisting mechanism may be under high-torque spring tension. This hazard is particularly serious when the adapter is constructed of metal or has protruding elements. According to a disclosure by Aero-Motive Company, Balancer Series 10F, 15F, 10FLR & 15 FLR, pp. 1–2, hereby incorporated by reference, improper use of a balancer mechanism “could result in serious injury, death, or property damage”. See also, U.S. Pat. No. 5,679,072, hereby incorporated by reference, as an example of a device having a “balancer” component.
Another significant problem with existing pressure differential distribution devices may be that they are difficult to operate. Often existing devices have unwieldy product-to-operator interfaces which can be frustrating or annoying to the operator. Many presently offered hoses or adapters, the components of the devices which are most frequently handled by the operator, are not designed to promote ease of use. For example, high temperature hose, utilized in most military and governmental vehicle maintenance shops, historically has been made of heavy stainless steel or galvanized tubing that may be cumbersome or difficult to maneuver. It is not uncommon for the operator, frustrated with the awkwardness or clumsiness of such hoses, to abandon their use even when abandonment may result in the waste of the financial resources invested in the pressure differential distribution device, or in the possibility of adverse health ramifications. Examples of such cumbersome, stainless steel tubing are disclosed by Monoxivent Systems Inc., Monoxivent Exhaust Elimination Systems, Hose Assembly Order Form, p. 3; Monoxivent Systems Inc., Monoxivent Overhead Systems, p. 4; Carmon Products, Inc., Carmon Rotoboom, RotoBoom, Drawing No. 79D5, p. 1, Carmon Products, Inc., Carmon Overhead Disappearing Exhaust System, Drawing No. 86-D3; Cesco-Advanced Air, Flexible Tubing, Drawing No. F558-305A 11/25, p. 1, (1980), each of which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Another significant problem with existing pressure differential distribution devices may be that they do not accommodate applications in which the emission extraction system must be mobile. Hose reels, for example, are often fastened to the walls, ceiling, or fixtures of a facility and can be completely immobile. Use of the system is often confined to a radius equal to the hose length. In-floor devices are completely immobile and, once again, the length of the exhaust hose may be the limit of the area in which an in-floor system may be used. See for example, Carmon Products, Inc., Cannon RotoBoom, Rotoboom Drawing No. 79D5; and Ammerman, Inc., Underfloor Automotive Exhaust Systems, p. 2, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Another significant problem with existing pressure differential distribution devices may be that they must be mounted with great precision or with significant structural attachment considerations, due to the larger weight of the devices. Examples are disclosed by Monoxivent Systems Inc., Technical Information, Monoxivent Overhead Systems, p. 4; Nederman Inc., Overhead Exhaust Extractor, Single and Double Extractor Fans, Drawing No. 13-2, p. 2; and Tykron, Inc., Swing Arm with Hose and Balancer, p. 1, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Another significant problem with existing pressure differential distribution devices may be that the hoses hang in the way of persons. Serpentine-type devices may provide better coverage than a hose reel type device or in-floor systems, but they can be unattractive and intrusive within the facility, because their hose frequently hangs in the way of the workers. See for example, Nederman Inc., Overhead Exhaust Extractor, Single and Double Extractor Fans, Drawing No. 13-2, p. 2, hereby incorporated by reference. See also, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,679,072; 5,791,980; 6,012,978; and 5,362,273, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference, as examples of “hanging hoses”.
Another significant problem with existing pressure differential distribution devices may be that the exterior surfaces become hot. High temperature stainless steel or galvanized hose can be prone to becoming dangerously hot when the system moves hot substances, such as emissions from vehicles. The body of the operator, as well as that of other persons, can easily be burned from contact with the heated metal surface. Many of the existing adapters that attach to substance or emission sources may likewise be constructed of metal and thus present the same possibility of inflicting injury. Examples of devices which may become hot are disclosed by Nederman Inc., Overhead Exhaust Extractor, Single and Double extractor Fans, Drawing No. 13-2, p. 2; Monoxivent Systems Inc., Technical Information, Vehicle Exhaust Damper, Series TCA, p. 3-A; Carmon Products, Inc., Carmon Tube Assemblies, Drawing No. 86-D1, p. 1; Harvey Corp., Carbon Monoxide Exhaust Removal System, Harvey Components and Accessories, p. 2; Monoxivent Systems Inc., Tailpipe Adapter Order Form, p. 1; Nederman Inc., Nozzles For Vehicle Exhaust Extraction, Nozzles for Trucks and Other Commercial Vehicles, p. 2, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Another significant problem with existing pressure differential distribution devices which are of the in-floor type may be that they do not completely retract into the floor receptacle or the floor covers may be left open. Persons working around such in-floor devices or open floor receptacles may suffer injury by tripping, or stumbling over strewn components of the emission extraction system, or suffer injury by falling into the open receptacle into which the hose enters. Moreover, the hose outlet assembly, even when operating properly with the floor receptacle closed, may often protrude above the floor surface, presenting similar hazard for those persons working around the device. See for example, Cesco-Advanced Air, Sales Brochure, Underfloor Disappearing with Vitrified Clay Pipe, Drawing No. F551-305A378, p. 1 (1978); Ammerman, Inc., Underfloor Automotive Exhaust Systems, Nos. 400, 601, 700, 1000-5, and 1000-6, p. 2; Technical Manual, Exhaust-O-Vent, p. 2 (1985); Sacatec, Inc., Hosereel For Exhaust Extraction, Cover, p. 1, Harvey Inc., Carbon Monoxide Exhaust Removal System, Harvey Overhead Exhaust System, p. 6, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Another significant problem with existing pressure differential distribution devices may be that many components have hardened, protruding edges or corners or the like which can cause injury to persons. Examples of these devices are disclosed by Nederman Inc., Overhead Exhaust Extractor, Nederman Simple Exhaust Extractors, Drawing No. 13-2; Monoxivent Systems Inc., Technical Information, Vehicle Exhaust Damper, Series TCA, P. 3-A, Carmon Products, Inc., Sales Brochure, Carmon Tube Assemblies, Drawing No. 86-D1, p. 1; Harvey Corp., Carbon Moxoide Exhaust Removal System, Harvey Components and Accessories, p. 2, Monoxivent Systems Inc., Tailpipe Adapter Order Form, p. 1; Nederman Inc., Overhead Exhaust Extractor, Nederman Simple Exhaust Extractors, p. 2, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference. See also, U.S. Pat. No. 4,086,847, hereby incorporated by reference, as an example of a device that has “hardened, protruding edges or corners”.
Another significant problem with existing pressure differential distribution devices may be that the hands of the operator may be injured if they are caught in the clamping mechanisms. Examples of devices which may pose this type of hazard are disclosed by Monoxivent Systems Inc., Technical Information, Vehicle Exhaust Damper, Series TCA, p. 3-A; and Nederman Inc., Overhead Exhaust Extractor, Nederman Simple Exhaust Extractors, p. 2, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Yet another problem with existing pressure differential distribution devices may be that when multiple pressure differential distribution devices are connected to a common exhaust fan all draw or expel even when only one device may be in operation. Since many existing devices or the terminal adaptors on such devices are not equipped with a damper or closure, those devices not attached to a source of the substance to be moved will instead draw in the ambient air within the facility and move it external to the facility, or may alternately move air from external to the facility and expel it into the facility. This situation may be problematic because users of a facility may spend larger sums of money to heat or cool the ambient air within their facility. Examples of undampered or non-closured devices are disclosed by Monoxivent Systems Inc., Technical Information Sheet, Vehicle Exhaust Damper, Series TCA, p. 3-A; Carmon Products, Inc., Sales Brochure, Car-mon Tube Assemblies, Drawing No. 86-D1, p. 1; Harvey Corp., Carbon Monoxide Exhaust Removal System, Harvey Components and Accessories, p. 2; Monoxivent Systems Inc., Tailpipe Adapter Order Form, p. 1, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference. See also, U.S. Pat. No. 4,086,847, hereby incorporated by reference, as an example of a multiple terminal adaptor device not equipped with a damper or closure.
Still another problem with existing pressure differential distribution devices may be that existing terminal interfaces are constructed of metal which may scratch, dent, or otherwise damage the equipment to which they are attached. See for example, metal terminal interfaces disclosed by Nederman Inc., Overhead Exhaust Extractor, Nederman Simple Exhaust Extractors, p. 2; Monoxivent Systems Inc., Technical Information, Vehicle Exhaust Damper, Series TCA, p. 3-A; Carmon Products, Inc., Sales Brochure, Carmon Tube Assemblies, Drawing No. 86-D1, p. 1; Harvey Corp., Carbon Monoxide Removal System, Harvey Components and Accessories, p. 2; Monoxivent Systems Inc., Tailpipe Adapter Order Form, p. 1; Nederman Inc., Nozzles For Vehicle Exhaust Extraction, Nozzles for Trucks and Other Commercial Vehicles, p. 2, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Another significant problem with existing pressure differential distribution devices may be premature hose failure due to high temperatures on the hose about the point of attachment to the substance or emission source. This problem can be exacerbated by restrictions that may develop in the hose at the point where it is attached to the emission port, due to the bend radius that may be required for attachment. When the hose is continually restricted, hot spots may develop on the hose which may shorten the life of the hose.
Another problem with existing pressure differential distribution devices may be that the retraction device is complicated. As disclosed by U.S. Pat. No. 5,402,551, “the input shaft is rotatably coupled to the output shaft of the motor. A clutch is disposed between the output shaft of the gear reduction unit and a vacuum hose reel”. Similarly, U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,911,944; 4,343,420; and 5,146,349 disclose respectively a “reversible motor . . . switches . . . pusher disposed both in front and in the rear of the hose for actuating switches . . . auxiliary switch for manual control”; a “dual roller configuration” with a “retraction spring” wherein the hose is retracted to comprise three lengths divided by the first and second roller; “pulleys coupled to both wheels and a flexible belt . . . crossing to provide the driving connection between the first wheel and the other wheel to turn them in opposite directions . . . ”. Similarly complicated are the “telescoping joints” and “counterweight means” disclosed by U.S. Pat. No. 4,086,847. This level of complexity to retract a hose, or similar component, can be understood to be problematic both with regard to potential malfunctioning of the device and with regard to maintenance of the device.
Another significant problem with existing pressure differential distribution devices may be that the devices are undifferentiated and repetitive, showing numerous incarnations of a few basic concepts and ideas, many of which have been scarcely improved since their introduction. As can be understood from the preceding list of problems and the associated body of disclosed information, that many of the above-mentioned industries that use pressure differential distribution technology have experienced long felt but unresolved needs for improved apparatus and methods. At the present time, pressure differential distribution technology suffers from a dearth of innovative ideas and methods; rather than attempting to create improved and imaginative concepts, the various industries continue to simply rely upon a few basic designs. Although some of these apparatus and methods have existed for decades, all of the above mentioned problems within the emission extraction industry remain. Some of these problems have never been addressed while other have been inadequately addressed.
As relating to pressure differential distribution technology in general, and emission extraction systems specifically, it can be understood there are an array of problems which should be addressed yet remain unresolved. The present invention addresses each the above-mentioned problems and provides practical solutions.